A comment on one component of the nuclear power issue. One of the arguments
against nuclear is the cost of building new plants. I wonder how much of
the expense is due to lengthy review & appeal processes & safety precuations
that go beyond what is really necessary - both the result of opposition to
the very idea of nuclear power. I.e., opponents drive up the cost & then
use the cost as further reason to oppose it.

Lest that seem like an unrealistic argument, I'll point out that just that
has happened with capital punishment in the US. Opponents of the death
penalty argue that it costs more to execute a person than to confine him/her
for life. The reason for that is the lengthy series of appeals that are
required before a death sentence can be carried out, a series that can mean
that someone condemned to death will serve at least a 10, & perhaps much
longer, prison sentence before execution, with accompanying expense.

I hasten to add that I am not arguing here against the possibility of
appeal, or for that matter for the death sentence, but simply pointing out a
parallel to what may be the situation with nuclear energy. & with regard to
that it should go without saying that I am not arguing for a lack of safety
precautions with nuclear power.